Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm at home so I have a little more data in front of me.

From 1997 to 2006, the average yearly high P/E for CNXS has been 29. There is a gap with no P/E information (according to Standard and Poor's) from 2000 to 2002, and the earlier P/E's are much higher than the more recent years. Because of this, my spreadsheet also calculates the average high of the three most recent years, which is 22.33.

My spreadsheet downloads the current P/E, and it closed today at a P/E of 25.40.

The average low P/E from 1997 is 13, which is a 123.08% difference from the high, and the average low P/E of the three most recent years is 10, which represents a difference of 123.33%.

You see my dilemma. I believe TomG and others when they say that CNXS is a good business ran by good people that would like to put bandages on horses' noses. :) But are they overvalued and ready to see a decline in P/E, along with a decline in price, like they do historically at *around* this valuation, or will they climb higher? What evidence is there to suggest that they will buck their historical trend and achieve a P/E ratio high enough beyond the numbers I've posted to justify the "risk" of waiting and perhaps being locked in for a couple of years to get back to where I was?

Thanks for reading.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.